Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 04/31] arm64/mm: define
 ARCH_SUPPORTS_SPECULATIVE_PAGE_FAULT
To:     Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, mhocko@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
        kirill@shutemov.name, ak@linux.intel.com, dave@stgolabs.net,
        jack@suse.cz, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com, benh@kernel.crashing.org,
        mpe@ellerman.id.au, paulus@samba.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, hpa@zytor.com,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
        kemi.wang@intel.com, Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Ganesh Mahendran <opensource.ganesh@gmail.com>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
        Punit Agrawal <punitagrawal@gmail.com>,
        vinayak menon <vinayakm.list@gmail.com>,
        Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>,
        zhong jiang <zhongjiang@huawei.com>,
        Haiyan Song <haiyanx.song@intel.com>,
        Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>, sj38.park@gmail.com,
        Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        haren@linux.vnet.ibm.com, npiggin@gmail.com,
        paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, x86@kernel.org
References: <20190416134522.17540-1-ldufour@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190416134522.17540-5-ldufour@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190416142710.GA54515@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
 <4ef9ff4b-2230-0644-2254-c1de22d41e6c@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190416144156.GB54708@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
 <20190418215113.GD11645@redhat.com>
From:   Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 23 Apr 2019 17:36:31 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190418215113.GD11645@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-Id: <73a3650d-7e9f-bc9e-6ea1-2cef36411b0c@linux.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Le 18/04/2019 à 23:51, Jerome Glisse a écrit :
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 03:41:56PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 04:31:27PM +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>>> Le 16/04/2019 à 16:27, Mark Rutland a écrit :
>>>> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 03:44:55PM +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>>>>> From: Mahendran Ganesh <opensource.ganesh@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Set ARCH_SUPPORTS_SPECULATIVE_PAGE_FAULT for arm64. This
>>>>> enables Speculative Page Fault handler.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ganesh Mahendran <opensource.ganesh@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> This is missing your S-o-B.
>>>
>>> You're right, I missed that...
>>>
>>>> The first patch noted that the ARCH_SUPPORTS_* option was there because
>>>> the arch code had to make an explicit call to try to handle the fault
>>>> speculatively, but that isn't addeed until patch 30.
>>>>
>>>> Why is this separate from that code?
>>>
>>> Andrew was recommended this a long time ago for bisection purpose. This
>>> allows to build the code with CONFIG_SPECULATIVE_PAGE_FAULT before the code
>>> that trigger the spf handler is added to the per architecture's code.
>>
>> Ok. I think it would be worth noting that in the commit message, to
>> avoid anyone else asking the same question. :)
> 
> Should have read this thread before looking at x86 and ppc :)
> 
> In any case the patch is:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>

Thanks Mark and Jérôme for reviewing this.

Regarding the change in the commit message, I'm wondering if this would 
be better to place it in the Series's letter head.

But I'm fine to put it in each architecture's commit.